RE: [Mimedefang] poor performence from SA

2006-01-15 Thread Gary Funck
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:51 AM > > I'm fed up with SA ! > Spam gets through no matter what i do :-( > and ham is blocked (well not all ham, but even one is > sometimes too much) Unfortunately, this is the nature of the beas

Re: [Mimedefang] poor performence from SA

2006-01-14 Thread James Ebright
Umm.. maybe you should try posting this to the SA list then.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi list, I'm fed up with SA ! ___ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.

Re: [Mimedefang] poor performence from SA

2006-01-12 Thread Kris Deugau
Kenneth Porter wrote: A spam filter, like an anti virus, must be constantly updated to match the spam that comes in. It's not something you install and forget about. I'd recommend updating SA to 3.1.0 to get better results. FWIW, I'm still happily using SA 2.64 on three systems for two reasons

Re: [Mimedefang] poor performence from SA

2006-01-12 Thread ms
Thanks Alan for you reply. Let me shed some light on the configuration, i was getting desperate and was mambling on how poor i am... :-) I have sendmail 8.13.4 running on debian 3.1. I install clamAV 0.87.1 and MimeDefang 2.54 I upgraded SA to 3.1 via: perl -MCPAN -e 'install MAIL::SPAMASSASIN'.

Re: [Mimedefang] poor performence from SA

2006-01-12 Thread Steffen Kaiser
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HELP!!! Actually, without a peek onto your filter and the info about what else you've installed to sendmail and probably what procmail (or whatever) filters, it's hard to make even a guess. Bye, -- Steffen Kaiser __

Re: [Mimedefang] poor performence from SA

2006-01-12 Thread Alan Premselaar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] > > I have upgraded to SA 3.1 but i get strange actions... > I think that the SA is now checked before mimedefang filters and skips > other > filters...(but i'm not 100% sure about that? how can check?) > Did you inst

Re: [Mimedefang] poor performence from SA

2006-01-12 Thread ms
Quoting Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Wednesday, January 11, 2006 4:51 PM +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sendmail 8.13.4 + mimedefang 2.54 + SA 3.0.3 + clamav A spam filter, like an anti virus, must be constantly updated to match the spam that comes in. It's not something you insta

Re: [Mimedefang] poor performence from SA

2006-01-11 Thread Kenneth Porter
On Wednesday, January 11, 2006 4:51 PM +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sendmail 8.13.4 + mimedefang 2.54 + SA 3.0.3 + clamav A spam filter, like an anti virus, must be constantly updated to match the spam that comes in. It's not something you install and forget about. I'd recommend updating S

[Mimedefang] poor performence from SA

2006-01-11 Thread ms
Hi list, I'm fed up with SA ! Spam gets through no matter what i do :-( and ham is blocked (well not all ham, but even one is sometimes too much) My boss got MAD because he was expacting a mail from some client...so i checked the logs...mail.log ofcourse, i saw the usual from=...Milter add: h